24 [...] given the various positions adopted by the State during the processing of the case before the Inter-American System for Protection of human rights, as regards the scope of its acceptance of responsibility, the Commission deems that a clear and express ruling by the [...] is necessary to ensure the principle of legal certainty [...] 100. In the brief with the final pleadings (supra para. 51), the representatives of the next of kin of the victim argued that: [t]he State presented [...] various positions with respect to its “acknowledgment of institutional responsibility” or “acquiescence”. Despite [that], the State has never accepted the central facts set forth in our application and in the application by the [...] Commission, or the facts proven at the public hearing, such as the responsibility of the Presidential Security Department of the Presidential General Staff in the murder of Myrna Mack and the denial of justice. Given the procedural stage of the case and the State’s pattern of behavior of withdrawing or “reinterpreting” its statements of responsibility, the representatives of the next of kin of the victim, based on the case law of this [...] Court, deem that a general acquiescence is insufficient [...]. Therefore, they asked the Court to issue a judgment on the merits in which it rules on the scope of the acknowledgment of responsibility by the State. 3) Considerations of the Court 101. Article 52(2) of the Rules of Procedure provides that: [i]f the respondent informs the Court of its acquiescence to the claims of the party that has brought the case, the Court, after hearing the opinions of the other parties to the case will decide whether such acquiescence and its juridical effects are acceptable. In that event, the Court shall determine the appropriate reparations and indemnities. 102. Article 54 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court provides that: [t]he Court, may notwithstanding the existence of the conditions indicated in the preceding paragraphs, and bearing in mind its responsibility to protect human rights, decide to continue the consideration of a case. 103. The Court will now state certain considerations pertaining to the scope of the acquiescence by the State and, therefore, its acknowledgment of international responsibility in the instant case. These considerations will be made in view of the fact that throughout the proceedings before the bodies of the inter-American system for protection of human rights, the State has several times given different extent to its acknowledgment of international responsibility. 104. First of all, the Court, exercising its adjudicatory function, applies and interprets the American Convention and, when a case has been brought before its jurisdiction, it has the authority to find that a State Party to the Convention has incurred international responsibility by violating its provisions. On the other hand, as it has reiterated before, this Court does not investigate or punish the individual behavior of the Agents of the State who may have participated in said violations.8 8 Cf. “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 223; Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 90; and “White Van” Case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 71.